Record labels

I think that the first record label that I was ever aware of was The Beatles' Apple Corps. I wasn't really sure what a record label was - other than, literally, the label in the middle of a record - but it made sense to me that they would have one. After all, they were The Beatles.

Then, when I was twelve, and I was into Ska, I learnt about the 2 Tone label. After that it was Stiff records, then Mute, and Factory. Virgin were pretty cool, too - after all, they had The Human League, Simple Minds, and Japan - but, of these, Mute, with its emphasis on electronic music, was the one that I felt most allegiance to.

I'm not exactly sure when I began to realise that record labels were not quite the altruistic organisations that I thought they were, that they didn't consist of music lovers who just wanted to share their passion with us. After all, this was the heyday of the independents - Cherry Red, Rough Trade, 4AD, the list goes on - and it didn't seem likely they'd want to stitch up their loyal customers.

I do remember, though, when The Police released a single on six different coloured vinyls. The A-side and the B-side were the same for each colour. This meant that the fans ended up buying the same single six times. Of course, no one was forcing them to but many fans would want the complete set. I felt sorry for my friend, Sal, because it cost him six quid to buy the lot.

But for the most part, I felt the labels, particularly the smaller ones, did provide well for fans. I liked it when Virgin released the double pack of Simple Minds' 'Sweat In Bullet' with the additional live tracks, for example, and around the time of Depeche Mode's third album, Mute effectively released a live album by putting four live tracks on the back of each twelve inch single.

I guess I personally began to feel screwed by the record companies around the time of the advent of CD but by then I'd read enough interviews in music papers and magazines to appreciate just how badly they'd treated many of their artists, not least through running up massive bills to promote the artists, for which those same artists were then liable, while the record companies pocketed the bulk of the profits. I remember reading that around the time U2 released 'The Unforgettable Fire', they owed Island one million pounds, those debts arising from the recording and promotion of their first three albums.

Whatever the reasons, I don't know many longterm music fans who have much that is good to say about record labels. And I think most artists are the same, Prince and George Michael being obvious examples. 

I was reminded of this, today, when I went to wrap this album for the Minx (it's her birthday on Saturday). I bought it from Amazon marketplace and I was amused to see it still had the original HMV tag on it. But look at the price: £15.99! No wonder people used to tape music from one another.

And whilst I never believed that home taping was killing the music industry - as the labels would have had us believe - I do believe that it was their pricing models that drove people to taping music and then, later, to sites like Napster. 

In making music more of a commodity - again around the time of CDs - I think the music industry laid the foundations of Spotify. Not the technology but the usage. I do think some people use it for convenience and to hear new music - and then go on to buy CDs - but for a lot of people it's a way to listen to music that they don't particularly value, which they do see as disposable. But still it's the artists who are hard done by, here, and not the labels.

These days, where most CDs I buy only cost a few quid and where I pay for Spotify Premium, I never really think about the record companies but seeing this HMV label brought back a surprising surge of resentment. (Mind you, I do get a similar feeling when I see the ticket prices for larger acts and their merchandise.)